Retreads

I'm not really liking my choices here:

Romney's in first place with 22% followed by Mike Huckabee at 21%, Newt Gingrich at 18%, Sarah Palin at 17%, and Ron Paul at 6%.

...How about you?

BREAKING: Jim Greer Arrested (UPDATED)

Scroll for updates.

Former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer has been arrested at his Florida home.    The Washington Post reports that bail has been set at $105,000. 

As of right now the charges are unknown but the Florida Department of Law Enforcement will hold a news conference within the hour to announce a "major arrest."

This could foster some backlash on "lonely guy" Charlie Crist who handpicked Greer to head the Florida GOP and stood by him as party activists demanded his resignation after reports of lavish and excessive spending.

Check back for updates.

Update:  While we're waiting on that news conference, little quick back story on Greer:  You will remember he was dumped in January under increasing pressure and investigation of his lavish spending.  The Orlando Sentinel posted an article in April that described lavish parties at his home.  A criminal investigation was launched against him which concerned "a secret contract that put a portion of major party contributions into his pocket."

As for Crist, the Sentinel reports that Greer was a '"top-tier" fundraiser for Crist in 2005 and 2006. Exactly how much he raised from others is unclear, but he, his wife, mother and companies donated $8,000."  The Sentinel describes some of Greer's excess:

By then, he had developed a taste for expensive things. His $465,000 home, finished in early 2006, is a showplace: 3,700 square feet, with a wine cellar, swimming pool and a two-story entry that features a sweeping, curved staircase and chandelier. He also owns two others: a $240,000 condo and $125,000 town house, both at the beach in Brevard County. He bought a plane, although he's not a pilot. His children — three live with him and his wife — had a live-in nanny. He drives a black Mercedes-Benz, his wife a white Lincoln Navigator.

There's more at the link.

Again, at this point, however, we don't know why he's been arrested.

Update 2:  Greer is indicted with six felony counts, including fraud and money laundering and four counts of grand theft centering on his Victory Strategies LLC corporation.

Now a Memeorandum thread is up.

Update 3:  The official press releases will be coming out now that the press conference is over, but it was confirmed that Greer's bond has been set at $105,000.  The charges focus on Greer's Victory Strategies contract with the Florida GOP.  The corporation was set up to allow Greer to serve as a "vendor" with Victory Strategies thus enabling him to write checks to himself from the donations that came in.  "Mr. Greer used the money for his own personal lifestyle."

When asked about potential prison time, it was explained that each of the six charges is a felony count.  Three are third degree felonies which carry a potential five years each in prison.  The two first degree felony counts carry a maximum of thirty years each.

Greer was arrested without incident at his home around 9:15;  Governor Crist was informed around 9 a.m. that the arrest would take place.  No other charges are expected at this time.

Update 4:  Charlie Crist is "disappointed" says the Tampa Bay Buzz:

Gov. Charlie Crist didn't have a lot to say about the arrest of Jim Greer when asked this morning at a press conference dealing with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Crist, answering a question from the Times/Herald, said he was "disappointed" by the news.
"I have faith in our judicial system," Crist said. "I know they will handle it appropriately."  A second question seemed to center around whether Crist felt responsible for Greer's actions as head of the Republican Party of Florida. Crist answered: "I do not feel complicit."

Later Crist said the news would not affect his Senate candidacy: "As I said earlier, it's disappointing, it's surprising. Sometimes you're disappointed by people."

No truer words...

No Seething Hatred Here

Mark Steyn at The Corner points to this headline from The Miami Herald:

Unified By Hatred Of Obama, GOP Still Searches For Challenger

Against my better judgment and concern for my blood pressure, I clicked on over.

Can I just address the fact that first of all "hatred of Obama" misstates the point, and I'm not speaking for the GOP because I'm not empowered to do that, but I'm speaking only for myself.  We had this argument way back when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama's policies to fail.  Oh, I know; he said "I hope he fails," but anyone with a grain of sense can read the context and know he meant Obama's radical policies.  We've been there and done that.

This headline only takes us back there.  It's the same argument.

Let me be clear.  I don't hate Obama.  I hate Obama's policies.  Period.

Now.  As to the rest of the article which addresses potential GOP challengers to Obama in 2012, let me suggest that Steven Thomma, author of the piece, missed the point or major theme of the SRLC in that the next battle the GOP is anticipating is 2010.  We're looking at the fall.  As Haley Barbour said, 2012 will take care of itself after that.

I'll go on record right now and say that I don't believe any of the current leaders on the Des Moines Register GOP Caucus poll will be the actual nominee in 2012.  But, I'm not worried about that right now.

(Cross-posted at Potluck)

GOP Iowa Caucus for 2012?

Crikey!  I'm glad 2012 is a ways off.  From The Des Moines Register:

If the GOP caucus was held in Iowa today, who would you vote for? Here’s what you told us:
Mitt Romney — 24%
Ron Paul — 18%
Sarah Palin — 12%
Tim Pawlenty — 12%
Mike Huckabee — 9%
Newt Gingrich — 9%
John Thune — 7%
Jeb Bush — 4%
Rick Santorum — 4%
Bobby Jindal — 4%

Looking at 2012

Phillip Klein at American Spectator takes a look at the potential GOP field for 2012 and sees...not much:

Though Mitt Romney is considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination right now, a lot of people still don't like him, both within the party and among the general population. Just as he was trying to get over his reputation as a flip-flopper from his first presidential run, he's now engaging in even more verbal gymnastics by trying to argue that Romneycare differs substantially from Obamacare (even though the plans are extremely similar).

Klein also considers Tim Pawlenty and finds him dull.

The comments are interesting and the normal suspects are offered there, Palin among them. Klein expects Obama to be vulnerable in 2012, but the GOP has to put someone viable up against him.

I'm waiting for Paul Ryan to be ready.

The Rubio - Crist Debate

Who in the world is in charge of Marco Rubio's schedule? The first Rubio v. Crist debate is about to begin at this incredibly early hour. I'll be blogging so check back.

Update 1: Crist comes out swinging, accusing Rubio of running only for the purpose of "enriching himself" by using funds to get haircuts and other personal amenities. Rubio counters nicely saying saying that the campaign isn't about personal issues but about the people of Florida.

Update 2: Chris Wallace shows "The Hug" picture leading into a question about Crist's support of the stimulus. 211,000 Floridians have lost their job since the stimulus, Rubio points out. Crist responds by bantering about Rubio's days as a lobbyist. Wallace tries to bring him back to point. Crist says if he hadn't taken the stimulus funds 87,000 more people would be unemployed. Wallace asks Crist if he would have joined the three Republicans in the Senate who voted for the Stimulus and Crist says absolutely he would have.

Update 3: Rubio says his favorite Senator is DeMint; Crist says his favorite is John McCain. Uh, okay.

Update 4: Crist is back to the haircut thing again. Rubio chides Crist for the continuing personal attacks. On health care reform: Crist says pre-existing conditions should be covered. He says repeal and start over, then touts the current program in Florida. Wallace points out that one tenth of one percent of Florida's uninsured have signed up for the Florida program. It's not really covering Florida, Wallace points out.

Rubio says there are so many things wrong with the health care bill, first among them is that we can't afford it. He touts tort reform, portability, etc. He stays the first step is to repeal it. Rubio says people should have the same sort of option members of Congress have; the employer based system should stay, but there should also be a system where small businesses can pool together and set up something as well.

On Twitter, @RubioPress links to a video where Crist says he would NOT repeal Obamacare.

Update 5: On immigration Rubio says the Republican party is not the "anti-immigration" party but is the "pro-legal immigration" party. Rubio says he and Crist disagree on amnesty - Crist would have voted for the McCain plan and Rubio says he would not.

Rubio says we need significant entitlement reform. On social security, Rubio says it cannot survivie in its current form. He advocates increasing the retirement age gradually. He advocates the Ryan Roadmap. Crist does not advocate increasing he retirement age. He would not change the cost of living adjustment. Crist says the answer is getting the waste and fraud out of the system.

Crist is dying to get off topic and talk about taxes. Wallace tries to channel him back but Crist holds firm and moves to taxes.

So, on taxes, Wallace points out that Crist broke his promise to Florida voters when he raised taxes and higher fees at the DMV. Crist says that's "not a tax, it's a fee. If you don't drive, you don't pay it."

Update 6: On the tea party movement: Rubio says the movement has been mischaracterized in the press. Wallace wants to know why Rubio won't allow himself to be vetted by the tea party movement. Rubio says he's unaware of the vetting process.

Update 7: Wallace asks whether or not Crist will switch to Independent. Crist says "I'm running as a Republican...this is a great party, we have a great future. I'm running as a Republican."

Rubio: "The governor likes to call himself a Reagan Republican. I don't recall anyone ever having to ask Reagan if he was going to run as an Independent."

In closing, Rubio's line is "Who do you trust to stand up to Barack Obama?" He says we can't trust Charlie Crist to do that. Crist's closing focuses on personal attacks again and accuses Rubio of "cooking the books."

Overall, I'd give this one to Rubio because he tried to stay focused on the issues. Crist was more interested in running Rubio down than in putting forth his own agenda. I think Crist's choice of McCain as his favorite Senator tells us what we need to know about him, as well as his decision to stand behind the failed McCain/Bush amnesty plan.

Point for Rubio!

Christine O'Donnell Raises a Challenge

The Delaware Senate race just got a little more interesting with the addition of Republican Christine O'Donnell to the race. O'Donnell forces a September primary against Representative Mike Castle who is looking to move from the House to the Senate.

Could Delaware be another Massachusetts? O'Donnell another Scott Brown? Castle voted against the Obamacare bill but has recently come out against repeal of the bill which will put him at odds against Senator Jim DeMint who has repeal at the top of his agenda.

Castle's position against repeal fits right in with his moderate label; he also voted FOR Cap and Trade in the House and supports embryonic stem cell research. He's soft on immigration and voted against forbidding interstate transportation of minors to get abortions.

Christine O'Donnell, on the other hand, is a proven vote getter, having run against Joe Biden for the seat in 2008 and garnering 35% of the vote - not enough to win, but quite respectable in a state that is supposedly a blue state.

The political landscape is very different now than in 2008 and O'Donnell looks to be a strong candidate.

She's pro-life, vows to fight to reduce taxes, strengthen national security and support gun rights.

All in all it should make the race more interesting and in today's political climate, anything can happen! If Mike Castle isn't going to join the Republican fight to repeal this job-killing liberty-sucking behemoth that is Obamacare, we don't need him.

Go here to donate to O'Donnell's campaign and put a true conservative in the Senate.

(Cross posted at Not One Red Cent!)

Republican Governors Association Has a Winner

Love it! Via Smitty:

Republican Establishment Still Doesn't Get It

I was busy yesterday enjoying the sunshine, doing laundry, groceries, light housecleaning, and finally sitting outside on the deck reading China Marine. It was a lovely and relaxing day which we ended by walking next door after the sun set for drinks with my neighbors and another good friend on their patio. I didn't open the laptop all day (except for in the a.m. when I posted my weekly roundup.)

Stacy McCain however, was busy blogging all day and I want to point to you his piece warning the national Republican establishment to stay out of Republican primaries. We saw what happens when they interfere with NY-23 race, not to mention John Cornyn's early endorsement of Charlie Crist in Florida over Marco Rubio.

The national Republican establishment is so far out of touch with what needs to be done in the Republican party to resume leadership in this country that it is frightening. They've yet to get the message that we don't need any more RINOs in Washington. Now Rep. John Boehner is backing Rep. Parker Griffith in Alabama, someone who votes with Nancy Pelosi most of the time.

As Stacy said,

"Just as with Cornyn’s support for Crist against Marco Rubio, Boehner’s backing of Griffith puts the national GOP establishment in the position of campaigning against the exact kind of dynamic young leaders they need to be supporting."

Read his whole post here.

Update: And on a related note, don't miss this report that Evangelical donor Mark DeMoss has penned a letter to Michael Steele expressing disgust over the leaked PowerPoint presentation and vowing to donate his generous contributions from now on only to those candidates he supports rather than to the party establishment. Bravo!

The depictions of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid were shameful, immature and uncivil, at best. While I realize your office made steps to distance you from this presentation I’m afraid the presentation is representative of a culture and mindset within the Republican National Committee; consequently, I will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party—but will contribute only to individual candidates I choose to support.

Read his entire letter here.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Colin Powell Still Stands With Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was on Face the Nation this morning expressing his continuing support for Barack Obama. Powell, as you recall, endorsed and voted for Obama and stands by that decision today.

From Powell's perspective, the problem with this administration lies not in the fact that the message or policy is wrong, but that the American people are to dense to understand it:

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell said Sunday he had no regrets about endorsing Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, but that the president "put too much on the plate for the American people to absorb at this time."

We can only focus on one thing at a time, you see.

When asked if Washington is "broken," Powell said it's not broken but it isn't functioning very well:

"In some ways the government is functioning. It's doing what it's supposed to do, but not well enough. The American people, I think, see the extreme positions being taken, too left on the Democratic side, too far right on the Republican side, the Tea Party movement is also now become a force in American politics. Of course, you've got the overhang of cable television and the Internet, all of which heightens tension and makes it harder and harder for our political leaders in the Senate or in the Congress to quietly make the compromises that are necessary."

It seems as if Powell thinks television and the Internet are hindrances to good government, but thank goodness for them both because where would we be now without them? I don't think the American people really want Congress to "quietly make the compromises that are necessary." To many Americans that simply means "backroom deals" like Mary Landrieu's Louisiana Purchase.

Granted, some compromises have to be made, but by both sides. And sometimes there is no compromise to be found. One should not be expected to compromise their principles or values. We are taught to stand up for what's "right."

Powell did say one thing that I agree with:

"[Americans are] looking for leaders in both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the House and Senate to start finding ways to compromise and get the country moving and not just scream at each other."

I do think people are tired of the bickering, but that's just politics. That's how it's always been and always will be when you have differing opinions. People feel strongly about the health care issue, for example, and it's safe to say that there may not be a lot of compromise to be made on that issue. Certainly there is some, but many people don't feel the need to compromise their feelings on, say, abortion for example. It's not helpful to "scream at each other" either.

But when Democrats, Harry Reid, wave the heavy stick and say either pass health care the way we want it or we'll just push it through with reconciliation, how can one expect there not be a howl of indignation from the other side? Is THAT compromise?

Powell invoked the Founding Fathers in his appearance today and pointed out that even they had to compromise when writing the Constitution. But they didn't have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to deal with.

And I guess as Powell sees it, they didn't have the Internet and cable TV either. But somehow I just can't believe we'd be better off right now without it!

Democrats or Republicans on National Security Issues?

The Washington Post article this morning about Obama inserting himself into the debate over where the KSM trial should be held (finally) quoted a statistic that has been puzzling me. It seemed off the wall to me when I read it this morning but I didn't question it too much at the time because I was more focused on the bigger issue, it seemed to me, which was that Obama is now paying attention to matters of national security.

The Post said this morning that Obama is more trusted on matters of national security than Republicans, which is so very odd to me (emphasis mine):

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 55 percent of voters say military tribunals should be used to try suspected terrorists, compared with 39 percent who say the civilian court system should be used. In November, there was an even split on this question. Still, Obama has an advantage on national security, with a majority of Americans continuing to approve of the way he is handling the threat of terrorism -- his highest-rated issue -- and 47 percent saying they mainly trust Obama on the issue compared with 42 percent who trust the GOP.

Yet according to Rasmussen on February 10:

On national security, Republicans are trusted more by a 49% to 40% margin after leading by 17 points in January. This marks the first poll to show Republicans earning less than 50% of voters’ trust on the issue since August of last year.

And in the War on Terror (still Rasmussen):

Recent polling shows that voter confidence in U.S. efforts in the War on Terror is near its lowest level in recent years. Only 36% of voters say the United States is safer today than it was before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, marking the lowest level of confidence since Rasmussen polling first asked the question in 2002.

So where does the Washington Post come up with these numbers?

The closest I can get is this Washington Post - ABC News poll dated Jan. 12-15, 2010 in which Obama does have more favorable numbers.

When asked if respondents approved or disapproved of the way Obama is handling terrorism, the results were:

b. The threat of terrorism

      -------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No
      NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
1/15/10    55       31         23      42       14         28         4
11/15/09   53       31         22      41       14         27         6
9/12/09    55       31         24      34       12         23        11
6/21/09    57       NA         NA      36       NA         NA         7
4/21/09*   57       NA         NA      26       NA         NA        17
*Pew

It's interesting. Curious, but interesting. The number of those who disapprove has climbed from 26 to 42 yet those who approve has stayed pretty much the same - from 57 to 55.

The sampling for the latest poll is supposedly:

          Democrat  Republican  Independent  Other  No op.  Dem.  Rep.  Lean
1/15/10       32         23           38        7      *      17    20     9

When asked how much confidence one has in (item) to make the right decisions for the country's future, 47% trusted Obama to 24% who trusted Republicans in Congress and 32% trusted Democrats in Congress.

And on preventing another terrorist attack in the U.S.:

a. Preventing further terrorist attacks in the United States

      -Excellent/Good -   -Not so good/Poor -     No
      NET   Exc.   Good   NET   Not so   Poor   opinion
1/15/10   58      8     50    41      30      11       1
9/7/06    66      9     57    33      24       8       1
1/18/04   74     14     61    25      19       6       1
9/7/03    80     19     61    19      16       3       1
9/8/02    75     13     62    23      21       3       2

Obviously that number has changed since Obama took office.

At any rate, I can't find the numbers WaPo refers to in their article today and they don't link to the poll. This January poll is the closest I can find.

I just don't believe more people trust Obama with national security than they trust Republicans, although I guess it could depend to which Republicans one refers. The Democrats, after all, is the party who just charged a man with explosives in his undies on an airplane in Detroit with nearly 300 people as a common criminal rather than an Al Qaeda trained enemy combatant.

I'm not trusting them. No way.

Rubio Leads Crist and Announces Stimulus Money Bomb

In exciting polling news today, word comes from Rasmussen that Marco Rubio leads Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican primary 49-37!

Charlie Crist has tanked faster than a rock in a pond and now Rubio moves ahead for the first time. Will Crist stay in the race? Erick Erickson thinks not.

Even better, Rubio has announced his Stimulus Money Bomb fund raising drive. It's common knowledge by now that Crist spoke out in support of Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan last year. As the one-year anniversary of the stimulus approaches, Rubio is asking that over the next ten days you donate some configuration of that figure, for example, $7.87, or $78.70, or even better, $787.00! His goal is to raise $1,000 for every $1 billion that was wasted through the stimulus.

You can donate to Marco here.



Cross posted at Not One Red Cent!

(More at Memeorandum)

Pity Party for Dede

Dede Scozzafava is upset because Republicans were "vicious" to her. Could someone get right on the organization of that pity-party, please?

Dear Dede. Let me assure you that if what you endured during the short course of this campaign made you feel maligned or offended your sensibilities, please take solace in the fact that you aren't Sarah Palin and you didn't have to endure what she went through for MONTHS longer than your supposed abuse.

And it could be, Dede, that had you properly represented yourself as a liberal from the get-go, as they say, this could all have been avoided. If there had ever been any doubt about your liberal leanings, your endorsement of the Democrat in that race simply proved the point that you are a liberal. Period.

Maybe someone could order a copy of Palin's book and ship it to Dede? She could learn what real conservatives stand for as well as take comfort in the fact that nobody made rape jokes about anyone in her family, nobody attacked her wardrobe, nobody filed ethics charges on her, nobody descended on her hometown en masse and interviewed everyone she'd every known from her first breath to present day, nobody accused her of using her family for props, and nobody accused her of faking a pregnancy, just to name a few.

Double Digit Losses For Dems in 2010

To borrow a phrase from Jimmie, "you just know the Republicans are going to screw this up."

Polls, analysts and experts are predicting double digit losses in the House for the Dems in the 2010 elections. From Politico:

Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.”

"Many veteran congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats,” he wrote.

There are a number of factors contributing to this hypothesis, among them an anticipated lower voter turnout than the one that put Obama in office. After a huge turnout for a presidential election, historically the mid-terms register lower. But, even as Obama's numbers continue to sink like a rock, Republicans don't seem to be capitalizing on this freefall.

I'm sure the Republicans can figure out a way to screw it up. I'm cynical now. And, well, face it - a lot of "Republicans" are really "Conservatives" and aren't so happy with the Republican label anymore. I mean, when you're calling John McCain and Charlie Crist Republicans........

GOP Ad: I'm Not a Doctor...

Comments? Is this one effective, or no?

Reforma

The new GOP ad - it's funny!

Jeb Bush on the Future of the Republican Party

Jeb Bush examines the future of the Republican party in an interview with Tucker Carlson. Carlson's presence rather overshadows the interview at times as he can't resist editorializing at every turn. That said, Jeb has some interesting things to say.

When asked about the current state of the GOP, Bush points out that the demographics "are going against us." He points to the fact that out of 53 districts in California, Democratic registration outnumbers Republicans in every single one. He says, "The swing voters are Hispanic voters in most of the swing states. And Republicans have done a poor job, sending signals that Hispanics aren't wanted in our party. Which is bizarre." He's got a point there, at least in Florida. The early dismissal of Marco Rubio by the NRSC is evidence of that. Rubio is a solid conservative candidate with wide appeal yet he was overthrown almost immediately in favor of the centrist Charlie Crist.

When asked if Republicans have alienated Hispanics, Bush replies, "The people that are on television are the loudest on the immigration issue. The emotion, the anger, is a signal. Put aside the substance, but just in terms of the language. It makes it sound like them and us." He suggests that Republicans moderate their language and change the tone in order to draw more Hispanic voters. I'm not sure that's the whole answer, but I think he has a point. One thing Republicans have not done well is find a way to effectively get their message across.

Bush says that conservatives have "lost their way." This much I agree with. Republicans have drifted too far center to the point where you can't tell many of them from the Democrats and this led to critical defeats in the past couple of elections. When voters can't tell one party from the other, what difference does it make who you vote for?

Bush contends that "we haven't upgraded our message. We haven't updated it" which he says makes Republicans "not relevant to the world we live in." What does this mean exactly? Become more centrist? Become more conservative? He suggests finding more "creative ways of expressing the principles."

Bush goes on to talk a bit about the 2008 campaign and why he thinks McCain lost, even though "he was far more qualified to be president than President Obama," and he talks about future contenders for the leadership of the Republican party (Newt, Rick Baker, Mitch Daniels, to name a few.)

If you can get through Tucker Carlson's smarmy editorializing, it's an interesting read.

Waxman is Off the Mark

Henry Waxman is now saying the GOP is "rooting against the country" because of their opposition to Waxman-Markey and to the health care takeover. He seems to be going back to the out-of-context Rush Limbaugh quote when he says “It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well.”

Waxman should understand that opposition to a job crippling energy tax and opposition to nationalized health care is not a personal vendetta against Obama. If denying Obama success means opposing those policies which I believe to be detrimental to American values and conservative principles then I guess that's what I'm doing. But it's all about fighting for what I believe is a better path for the American economy and the American in general than a personal grievance against Obama.

The case has been made, and partially by the Democrats themselves in the bill, that Waxman-Markey will kill jobs. This is why there is a provision to provide compensation for those that WILL lose their jobs. Evidence abounds that this bill is a job killer. It is also well documented that Waxman-Markey will increase energy costs (and food costs and costs of everything else) for every single American. Even those that will get cash directly deposited into their bank accounts to help pay those higher energy costs will be paying more in the grocery store, more for clothing, more for everything else they buy. And at the same time it does little or nothing toward reducing global warming, which may or may not actually exist. The debate on that isn't over. Ridiculous.

If opposing a national health care takeover is unpatriotic and "rooting against America" then count me in on that one, too. Did you see this lady from Canada? Listen to this:



Is that what I want for Americans? No.

Honestly, I believe we've strayed so far into this entitlement culture that not even Republicans always see clearly where they're going. I realize that as a country you have to grow, progress and evolve, but I don't think the Founding Fathers ever intended for the government to provide health care to everybody. I just don't believe health care is a right.

Waxman is off the mark when he says that Republicans just "want to deny President Obama success." If handing him success means handing over my conservative principles and values, then yes, that's what I'm doing. But I'm not "rooting against the country." I'm rooting against big government, massive spending, and job loss. I'm rooting FOR the country.

Update: What Texas Rainmaker said. Yeah.

I Like It!

Allahpundit says it's a bit hokey, and I guess he's right; the twanging music is a little over the top. But I like it!

GOP Brackets

Some NPR fun: